Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think the rich man understood quite well. And Jesus did explain the meaning-as best as possible, to Nicodemus. If He was speaking strictly in symbolic terms in John 6 He could've at least said something like. "Hey, guys, don't take it so seriously; I wasn't really talking about eating my flesh and drinking my blood; I was speaking of "heavenly things", as I confided to Nicodemus.
Possibly, but I think that we also know that Jesus just let him go without any further dialog. That's basically the same as what happened with the Jews in John 6.I think the rich man understood quite well.
No, he certainly did not. He allowed Nicodemus to go away uncertain of the meaning.And Jesus did explain the meaning-as best as possible, to Nicodemus.
Yes, he "could have." But he did not--not in any of these cases. That is what I was trying to show you.If He was speaking strictly in symbolic terms in John 6 He could've at least said something like. "Hey, guys
Sometimes Jesus spoke literally, sometimes He spoke figuratively or metaphorically. Apparently you've chosen to believe the latter applies for John 6.Possibly, but I think that we also know that Jesus just let him go without any further dialog. That's basically the same as what happened with the Jews in John 6.
No, he certainly did not. He allowed Nicodemus to go away uncertain of the meaning.
This appears to be Christ's way--to make his point known but not to belabor it when the listener didn't or couldn't get the real point. Why this was his way, we do not know.
Yes, he "could have." But he did not--not in any of these cases. That is what I was trying to show you.
Sometimes Jesus spoke literally, sometimes He spoke figuratively or metaphorically. Apparently you've chosen to believe the latter applies for John 6.
Sometimes Jesus spoke literally, sometimes He spoke figuratively or metaphorically. Apparently you've chosen to believe the latter applies for John 6.
Its difficult to understand i admit. However when He said the flesh profits nothing he was talking about His flesh.
The jews and disciples thought that Christ was trying to get them to eat real flesh and blood, they took it literally. Yet was he speaking literally?
Because they mistakenly thought he WAS speaking literally, of course.
OK, one more neo-pope at work. Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference. So, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist? Or not?I've chosen to take him as he most likely meant to be taken, rather than trying to force a meaning out of his words there in order to support any preconceived notion I bring to the reading.
I'd recommend that you take this approach also if you want actually to understand what Christ meant.
OK, one more neo-pope at work. Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference. So, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist? Or not?
OK, one more neo-pope at work. Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference. So, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist? Or not?
The jews and disciples thought that Christ was trying to get them to eat real flesh and blood, they took it literally. Yet was he speaking literally?
Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference.
OK, one more neo-pope at work. Apparently Sola Scriptura adherents often need to more or less guess when He's speaking literally or not, depending on their preference. So, is Jesus really present in the Eucharist? Or not?
Because they mistakenly thought he WAS speaking literally, of course.
If we were to accept your personal interpretation of scripture it would also render the sacrifice of Christ on the cross worthless as well.
It's not Christ's flesh which 'profits nothing' but our own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?